I suppose this would depend on whether you subscribe to evolutionary theory or not...If you do then other people would already have existed on earth and Cain's marriage is not so problematic...If not then many believe that he was married to his sister which would not be too unusual considering that Abraham was married to his half-sister and Amram, Moses' father, was married to his aunt...

I suppose this would depend on whether you subscribe to evolutionary theory or not...If you do then other people would already have existed on earth and Cain's marriage is not so problematic...If not then many believe that he was married to his sister which would not be too unusual considering that Abraham was married to his half-sister and Amram, Moses' father, was married to his aunt...

I had hoped that someone might cite an Orthodox Father's opinion on this

I'm aware that Lot had intercourse with his daughters, but they got him drunk. Incest is only specifically banned in the time of Moses (unless someone's aware of an earlier prohibition). And I do appreciate the fact that God allowed some behaviours to go on in the OT, even though these aren't ideal.

I give you credit, TomS. For all the BS you like to spew on this forum (just teasing), you may be right here. Genesis was written from the oral traditions and mythology of the Jewish people (and probably even of the Semitic peoples who preceded the sons of Israel). I'm not sure that strict historical accuracy was so important to this tradition as today's literalists would like us to believe. Therefore, I don't think historical accuracy is as important here as is the spiritual truth communicated in the myths. Fr. Thomas Hopko will even point to the conundrum of this thread as evidence that we should NOT adhere to such a literalist interpretation of Genesis--at least of the Genesis narrative prior to the calling of Abraham.

This story has God making man after He creates all other forms of life.

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

(Genesis 1:25-27)

Now read this story. It has God making man before He creates all other forms of life.

...when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

(Genesis 2:5-7)

Now how can the two contradictory narratives be reconciled by one who holds to a literal interpretation of the text?

I have heard (nothing official, mind you!) that the Bible, for the most part, focuses on Jesus and His ancestors. If that's the case, where Cain got his wife is not hard to understand--other people were created after Adam and Eve in other parts of the world, we just didn't get an account of their lives. However, I guess we're all descended from Noah and his family because everyone else was destroyed in The Flood!!!

I have heard (nothing official, mind you!) that the Bible, for the most part, focuses on Jesus and His ancestors. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If that's the case, where Cain got his wife is not hard to understand--other people were created after Adam and Eve in other parts of the world, we just didn't get an account of their lives. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š However, I guess we're all descended from Noah and his family because everyone else was destroyed in The Flood!!!

I always thought that other people were created. I just don't have any knowledge of any Fathers that say this

Now how can the two contradictory narratives be reconciled by one who holds to a literal interpretation of the text?

I'd read up on the church fathers on this, it's not like they were never confronted with this apparent contradiction. But Bible Difficulties will do for now:

"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

I'd read up on the church fathers on this, it's not like they were never confronted with this apparent contradiction. But Bible Difficulties will do for now:

"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Why? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

It's always been kinda hard for me to reconcile the entire human race as "springing forth" from one fleshly source. I can't conceive of "incest" being outlawed by the Lord after the fact, as "God Is Unchanging". Also, all cultures of the world have their own Creation legend, as well as their own Flood legend. Who's to say that the Genesis account isn't simply the history of the Semitic race(s), and that there weren't other human races co-existent, or co-created, at the same time? I'm not trying to flog the dog, just wish there were more documented proof of the origins of the entire "human race" that didn't rely on carbon dating or whatever else gets used these days rather than the written word.

It's always been kinda hard for me to reconcile the entire human race as "springing forth" from one fleshly source. I can't conceive of "incest" being outlawed by the Lord after the fact, as "God Is Unchanging". Also, all cultures of the world have their own Creation legend, as well as their own Flood legend. Who's to say that the Genesis account isn't simply the history of the Semitic race(s), and that there weren't other human races co-existent, or co-created, at the same time? I'm not trying to flog the dog, just wish there were more documented proof of the origins of the entire "human race" that didn't rely on carbon dating or whatever else gets used these days rather than the written word.

God is unchanging but He allows us to change; hence there's laws against eating magical animals* but now we can

Not quite the "animal" I'm referring to. Although most races of the world now eat pork and are not condemned for it, it is still very AntiChrist in spirit to even consider incest as a valid option, much less think of it as where we came from. Plus, isn't there "proof" of remains of ancestral peoples from many places in the world, not just one?

Not quite the "animal" I'm referring to. Although most races of the world now eat pork and are not condemned for it, it is still very AntiChrist in spirit to even consider incest as a valid option, much less think of it as where we came from. Plus, isn't there "proof" of remains of ancestral peoples from many places in the world, not just one? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

I agree that there's a vast difference in degree between eating pork and incest. However we know from the OT that many things were allowed by God; as the slaughtering of men women and children of some tribes.

I also do believe that God created other people. I'm just pointing out I don't agree with your argument that incest would never have been allowed because God doesn't change. That is, I agree that God doesn't change, but He has allowed different things at different times.

I am not interested in posting on this subject; but I have read a few postings.

I did notice that you questioned the absolute truth of the bible. You mentioned that Genesis may be truth for Semitics and not the whole world.

Not surprising that you would say something as shocking as that.

Did you read this in one of your "bibles"; or are you just expressing how 'you' see truth like you seem to do so often.

The Bible deals with this subject directly.

To all others:WE are to view scripture for its truth in Gods plan for salvation of ALL mankind...To dilly dally with subjects like this is fruitless talk. I mean look; we could 'question' everything if that is the point.

I'd read up on the church fathers on this, it's not like they were never confronted with this apparent contradiction. But Bible Difficulties will do for now:

"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

Peace.

I think this is a bit silly becauses it doesn't address, and really never seems to notice, an important distinction. Plants and herbs were already growing. It was rather plants and herbs of the field that were not. This is because Adam and Eve had not fallen. In Genesis 3:18 the distnction can be seen again: "It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field."

Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

This story has God making man after He creates all other forms of life.

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

(Genesis 1:25-27)

Now read this story. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š It has God making man before He creates all other forms of life.

...when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

(Genesis 2:5-7)

Now how can the two contradictory narratives be reconciled by one who holds to a literal interpretation of the text?

Where is the contradiction?The first bit says God created man after the animals etc, the second bit invites to imagine a time before the land could be used for harvest, there were no plants in the FIELD, because there was no man to TILL the field.

p.232 of Fr. Seraphim Rose's great book reveals that Church Fathers believed Cain's wife to be a distant relative. Historical narrative of Jewish writers reveal that Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters over his 930 year life span. Obviously easy for a relative to be around by the time Cain got a wife.

How could Cain's wife be a distant relative, no matter how many children Adam and Eve had. I mean, if I have one brother, is he a closer relative than if I have six brothers and three sisters? The fact that Adam had lots of children wouldn't change that Cain's wife (assuming that Adam and Eve were the only people created by God directly) would have either had to be his sister, his niece, his great-niece, etc. If she was someone other than his sister, that would mean that (at least) one of his sisters and brothers were married and produced children.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

How could Cain's wife be a distant relative, no matter how many children Adam and Eve had. I mean, if I have one brother, is he a closer relative than if I have six brothers and three sisters? The fact that Adam had lots of children wouldn't change that Cain's wife (assuming that Adam and Eve were the only people created by God directly) would have either had to be his sister, his niece, his great-niece, etc. If she was someone other than his sister, that would mean that (at least) one of his sisters and brothers were married and produced children.

Using words like "distant" makes the concept slightly more palatable. Who wants to think that (whether by special creation or an evolutionary route) the entire human race came out of close relatives bumping beauties?

How could Cain's wife be a distant relative, no matter how many children Adam and Eve had. I mean, if I have one brother, is he a closer relative than if I have six brothers and three sisters? The fact that Adam had lots of children wouldn't change that Cain's wife (assuming that Adam and Eve were the only people created by God directly) would have either had to be his sister, his niece, his great-niece, etc. If she was someone other than his sister, that would mean that (at least) one of his sisters and brothers were married and produced children.

Using words like "distant" makes the concept slightly more palatable. Who wants to think that (whether by special creation or an evolutionary route) the entire human race came out of close relatives bumping beauties?